Why is Syria different? My answer.

[Quantum Windbag]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

1. There are no enforcement provisions in the treaty, and it doesn't bind countries that have not signed it. That makes the answer to that question no.
2. See the no answer above.
3. See the no answer above.
4. See the no answer above.

Since your entire argument is based on someone believing something that is not true, you have no argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

That is pretty much where I come down. Bush was right that we needed to do something about the violations, but the entire thing was screwed up. The one good thing he did was getting a binding agreement for the withdrawal of forces before he left office.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

Well your doing a great job justifying action in Iraq,a position you have never taken.


You must have evolved.

They are not rhetorical questions. I understand that saying that may go over your head.

They are stupid questions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

What if the cease fire violation was not a threat to our national security?

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well your doing a great job justifying action in Iraq,a position you have never taken.


You must have evolved.

They are not rhetorical questions. I understand that saying that may go over your head.

They are stupid questions.

Why?

 

[Synthaholic]

First, no one is advocating ‘going to war,’ including the president.

War is armed conflict between two, or more, nations, or states, or different groups within a nation or state. If we engage in military action in another country we are going to war. You can pretend that the universe is run on unicorn farts, but the rest of us have to live in the real world.

Since you ducked it the first time:


Did we go to 'war' with Libya when Reagan sent missiles at Qaddafi's desert tents?

Did we go to 'war' with Afghanistan when Clinton sent missiles at bin Laden's training camp?


Do NOT run away again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the cease fire violation was not a threat to our national security?

Doesn't matter, those were the terms agreed to by all parties. If we don't have our word we have nothing.

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

That treaty obligates the US not to produce, or use, chemical weapons. If you want to make a case that we violated that treaty at some point, feel free. Until then, what's your point?

 

[Synthaholic]

Doesn't matter, those were the terms agreed to by all parties. If we don't have our word we have nothing.

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

That treaty obligates the US not to produce, or use, chemical weapons. If you want to make a case that we violated that treaty at some point, feel free. Until then, what's your point?

^^^ Weasel.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But you’ve not addressed the ‘difference’ between Libya and Syria.

Likely because there is none.

The problem is most on the right supported an attack on Libya in 2011, but now oppose an identical strike on Syria – that’s hypocrisy.

As a rightist perhaps you could address that hypocrisy, as it’s perfectly appropriate to infer that conservative opposition to a strike against Syria is purely partisan.

Indeed, conservative and republican opposition to military action against Syria is completely inconsistent with fundamental neo-con and rightist foreign policy dogma for at least the last 30 years – where Reagan, GHWB, and GWB all authorized military action against countries such as Libya, Granada, Lebanon, Panama, Iraq (Kuwait), Iraq again, and Afghanistan predicated on the need to punish or diminish the military power of a particular dictator or ruler on international law/humanitarian grounds.

I don't know where you get the idea that Conservatives supported Obama's actions in Libya..

I sure as hell didn't. I was opposed to that action for some of the same reasons I am opposed to this..

It's a civil war, an internal matter that is not overflowing the borders and threatening the U.S.

As far as Assad using gas on his own people.. Still no proof that he did, only Obama's and Kerry's word. Both are proven liars so I don't trust them to be telling the truth.

I am of the mind that this whole thing is no more than a "Look Squirrel" in an attempt to distract from the various scandals plaguing this administration.

I remember it that way too, but I am not a partisan hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

But you’ve not addressed the ‘difference’ between Libya and Syria.

Likely because there is none.

The problem is most on the right supported an attack on Libya in 2011, but now oppose an identical strike on Syria – that’s hypocrisy.

As a rightist perhaps you could address that hypocrisy, as it’s perfectly appropriate to infer that conservative opposition to a strike against Syria is purely partisan.

Indeed, conservative and republican opposition to military action against Syria is completely inconsistent with fundamental neo-con and rightist foreign policy dogma for at least the last 30 years – where Reagan, GHWB, and GWB all authorized military action against countries such as Libya, Granada, Lebanon, Panama, Iraq (Kuwait), Iraq again, and Afghanistan predicated on the need to punish or diminish the military power of a particular dictator or ruler on international law/humanitarian grounds.

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

This makes no sense.

First, no one is advocating ‘going to war,’ including the president.

Second, no one is in support of the limited strikes “simply because the president tells us it is a good idea.”

Last, if you’re aware of the WPA, then you know a given president is acting both legally and Constitutionally when authorizing military action during an initial 60-day period. Until such time as Congress either repeals the WPA, or a Federal court determines the Act un-Constitutional or the Executive’s interpretation of the Act un-Constitutional, the president’s actions are legal and presumed to be warranted.

If you believe the WPA conflicts with the original intent of the Framers, then advocate for its repeal. Until such time as the Act is repealed, however, you’re in no position to make the claim that any president is ‘violating’ the Constitution when invoking the authority granted him by the WPA.

Excellent post & thread killer!

I see you are still delusional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are not rhetorical questions. I understand that saying that may go over your head.

They are stupid questions.

Why?

Because they are based on the answer to one question being yes when it is no.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, no one is advocating ‘going to war,’ including the president.

War is armed conflict between two, or more, nations, or states, or different groups within a nation or state. If we engage in military action in another country we are going to war. You can pretend that the universe is run on unicorn farts, but the rest of us have to live in the real world.

Since you ducked it the first time:


Did we go to 'war' with Libya when Reagan sent missiles at Qaddafi's desert tents?

Did we go to 'war' with Afghanistan when Clinton sent missiles at bin Laden's training camp?


Do NOT run away again.

I ducked it the first time? I am pretty sure this board wasn't around in 1983. Even if it was, I wasn't on it, so I didn't duck squat.

That said, the answer to your questions are yes, and yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

That treaty obligates the US not to produce, or use, chemical weapons. If you want to make a case that we violated that treaty at some point, feel free. Until then, what's your point?

^^^ Weasel.

Looking in a mirror again?

If I am wrong about what the treaty says, show me.

 

[Plasmaball]

They are stupid questions.

Why?

Because they are based on the answer to one question being yes when it is no.

so he is just using your playbook..rather amusing

 

[midcan5]

The paradox of Syria is why does it matter how I kill you, in this case how a dictatorial government kills its citizens. If I bomb you is that Ok? If I shoot you is that OK? If I promise not to gas you but will starve you instead is that Ok? Given that gas seems to be the only reason the world decided to get involved, if I promise not to use gas can I proceed with mass murder. And so long as my government, that is any government, doesn't use gas we're good with that. Thanks I have lots of bombs and other nations will stand in line to sell them to us. Maybe I have been reading too much Cormac McCarthy and the Glanton gang has addled my brain but at this point the best thing is threat, do it again and you.....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What if the cease fire violation was not a threat to our national security?

Doesn't matter, those were the terms agreed to by all parties. If we don't have our word we have nothing.

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why?

Because they are based on the answer to one question being yes when it is no.

so he is just using your playbook..rather amusing

Still can't get over the fact that rdean is smarter than you are?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't matter, those were the terms agreed to by all parties. If we don't have our word we have nothing.

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The paradox of Syria is why does it matter how I kill you, in this case how a dictatorial government kills its citizens. If I bomb you is that Ok? If I shoot you is that OK? If I promise not to gas you but will starve you instead is that Ok? Given that gas seems to be the only reason the world decided to get involved, if I promise not to use gas can I proceed with mass murder. And so long a my government, that is any government, doesn't use gas we're good with that. Thanks I have lots of bombs and other nations will stand in line to sell them to us. Maybe I have been reading too much Cormac McCarthy and the Glanton gang has addled my brain but at this point the best thing is threat, do it again and you.....

Remember all those times I complained about you just posting quotes, and not posting your own thoughts?

It won't happen again.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

I listed my justification for Iraq, dick.

Strike two